There is not a valid religious argument against Gay Marriage
Debate Rounds (3)
Now, I am a libertarian. I'm am not for the banning of gay marriage. But, saying that no religion can call gay marriage a sin is a lie. First, let me respond to the tirade about hating people. There is a phrase that says "love the sinner but hate the sin". Sin is sin. It as simple as that. If in its interpretation of scripture a religion finds that homosexuality is a sin, than it is a sin. Now, to claim that sin gives you grounds to hate someone is a lie. I'm not here to defend those people.
Here is a hypothetical question. If someone steals from their neighbor, what should happen? Should the members of the church hate that person? Should they change their beliefs so that the thief is made to feel better about their sin? Neither. Sin is sin, no matter who does it, or whether they have done good elsewhere. Justice demands that if a law is broken, someone must suffer the punishment. Nothing more than that, such as having people hate you. And nothing less, such as having your sin be erased from the doctrine of the church.
Hate does not factor into this question whatsoever. This is whether there is scripture which is against gay marriage.
Now back to the question. In my religion, which is the LDS religion, we have continued revelation. And we have received revelation explicitly stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, my religion has a valid argument against gay marriage.
Please note that I have proved that a religion has grounds for being against gay marriage, therefore winning the debate.
Now, I realize that when you said religion, you meant something along the lines of the Catholic Church, so I will continue to debate you based on the grounds of the bible alone. And, although there are still fallacies in your argument, I've spoken enough and reclarified the debate, I will end this round and allow you to respond.
Let me combat your hypothetical question with a question of my own. During the Civil Rights Movement, there were many people who used The Bible to condone slavery, a practice I think we can both be in agreement is horrible and a huge violation of Human Rights. They often pointed to the verse "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." (Peter 2:18: ). There are also verses in the BoM that point to people of African descent being inferior such as: "dark skin is a sign of God"s curse, while white skin is a sign of his blessing. When the Lamanites displease God, "because of their iniquity".the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them" (2 Nephi 5:21). The point I am making, is just because there are places in the Bible or BoM that support racism and enslavement, does that make them ok?
I am not refuting the fact that they are places in Abrahmic Scripture that could be interpreted as anti-gay, but that does not make them any more correct. The other aspect of the argument is that some of the stories and verses used to support homosexuality and delegalization of gay marriage are up for interpretation. You can find verses in the Bible to condone incest! If you are basing your views on a subject off a scripture written thousands of years ago, than you are operating on a very low moral level of reasoning. Using this logic, you could interpret a Mormon, Islamic, Christian, or Jewish verse in ANY way you wanted to, and according to you that makes it valid because it is someone's interpretation.
For instance, going back to the incest point, the Bible explicitly states: Abraham said, "Because I thought, surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. Besides, she actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife; and it came about, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said to her, 'This is the kindness which you will show to me: everywhere we go, say of me, He is my brother.""
The point I am making is that while there may be many interpretations of verses in different scripture that condone Homosexuality, (especially in Mormonis, you have a whole webpage https://www.mormon.org...) but that does not make them correct, logical, or even universally accepted. My point being that it is interpretation, which is personal. Denying people their happiness is a violation of Human Rights and is wrong. Worry about your own sins and atoning for those before you interfere with someone else's lifestyle and choices.
So, the Book of Mormon speaks in favor of racism? Well, you could interpret it that way. Your interpretation would be wrong though. Because in your example, you commit the problems that you rail against. First, you sparingly quote the actual words. Second, you don't provide context either before or after the verse. Here are the actual words.
"20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."
The cursing was basically to separate the Nephites and Lamanites. The cursing followed disobedience, not their skin color.
The first of these points that I would like to discuss is the partial reading of any scripture. For example, a single line in a verse could say that, "the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up". That is definitely in the scriptures. But the words "as if" are omitted. Without those words, you could interpret it as a prophesy telling people to commit revolution, or that rods would all of the sudden move without anyone there. But the scriptures aren't subjective. People may interpret scriptures in different ways, but saying that every interpretation is right isn't true.;
So, if you believe that your book of scripture is perfect, all you have to do to find the truth is go throughout the entire book to find what it teaches. But, you don't hold the Bible to be applicable today. At least not entirely. So, you need extra authority to back up whatever claim that you may have. Now, once again, no one has an agreed upon authority, but certain religions do have prophets, other scriptures, or traditions. I don't know what you believe in.
In summary, there is no one universal scripture or authority which declares homosexuality a sin, mainly because there is no universal authority. Each religion has its own truth, and its own viewpoint on gay marriage and homosexuality. But to say that they have no grounds for being against it is wrong. You have admitted that there are scriptures up for interpretation that condemn homosexuality, and that certain religious authorities are against it.
I will now allow you to respond to any points that you see here. I have already said more than I wanted to, and I had to rewrite everything twice.
thegingerrrrr forfeited this round.
Thank you thegingerrrrr for this chance to debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.